National case definition: Lyme disease

Date of last revision: November 2024

On this page

National notification

Confirmed and probable cases of disease should be notified.

Type of surveillance

Routine case-by-case notification to the federal level.

Case classification

Confirmed case

Clinical evidence of illness with laboratory confirmation by one of the following methods:

OR

Clinical evidence of illness with a history of residence in, or visit to, a Lyme disease risk areaFootnote *, and with laboratory evidence of infection in the form of a positive serologic test using the standard two-tiered testing (STTT) or modified two-tiered testing (MTTT) approachFootnote 3Footnote 4 (see laboratory comments).

Probable case

A case that meets laboratory evidence of infection (using one of the methods as defined above under confirmed case, also see Laboratory comments), with history of residence in, or visit to, a Lyme disease risk areaFootnote * and without clinical evidenceFootnote **.

OR

Clinical evidence of illness without a history of residence in, or visit to, a Lyme disease risk areaFootnote *; and with laboratory evidence of infection in the form of a positive serologic test as defined above under confirmed cases (see Laboratory comments).

OR

Clinician-observed erythema migrans without laboratory evidence but with history of residence in, or visit to, a Lyme disease risk areaFootnote *.

Laboratory criteria

Criteria for serologic testing are described by the guidelines of the Association of Public Health LaboratoriesFootnote 3Footnote 4. Serologic evidence is confirmatory only in patients with objective clinical evidence of disseminated Lyme disease, and a history of residence in, or visit to, a Lyme disease risk area. Serologic testing is not recommended in patients with early localized Lyme disease with exposure from a Lyme disease risk area.

The STTT approach consists of a screening ELISA followed by an immunoblot assay. The MTTT approach consists of a screening ELISA, followed by a different, sequential ELISA, replacing an immunoblot. Immunoblots include traditional Western blotsFootnote 3 or newer line blots, and both formats target B. burgdorferi immunoreactive proteinsFootnote 5.

Laboratory testing should be done through a licensed and accredited public health laboratory. It's not recommended to:

Clinical manifestations

The clinical information presented below is not intended to describe the complete range of signs and symptoms that may be used in a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease. Symptoms of early or late disseminated Lyme disease are described in scientific literatureFootnote 1Footnote 2. Other symptoms that are associated with Lyme disease (such as post Lyme disease syndrome) are considered too non-specific to define cases for surveillance purposes, even though they are caused by B. burgdorferi infection.

Objective evidence of Lyme disease includes the following when an alternative explanation is not found:

Objective evidence of disseminated Lyme disease includes any of the following when an alternative explanation is not found:

ICD code(s)

ICD-10 code
A69.2 Lyme disease (Erythema chronicum migrans due to Borrelia burgdorferi)

Comments

These are definitions for surveillance and epidemiologic purposes only, they do not represent clinical case definitions used for diagnosis purposes.

Footnotes

Footnote *

A Lyme disease risk area in Canada is defined as a locality in which there is evidence for the occurrence of reproducing populations of known tick vector species (particularly Ixodes scapularis and Ixodespacificus) and the likely transmission of B. burgdorferi as determined by one of the following methods:

  1. active field surveillance involving capture of wild rodent reservoirs as well as drag sampling on multiple occasions to ensure that ticks have become established (as evidenced by demonstration of all three feeding stages of the tick over more than one year) and that B. burgdorferi is being transmitted (as evidenced by molecular detection or culture of ticks or rodent samples)Footnote 6;
  2. active field surveillance involving only drag sampling for ticksFootnote 7;
  3. evidence from passive tick surveillance when using field-validated methods of analysis of these data to improve their specificity in detecting tick populations (these may include high numbers of submitted ticksFootnote 8, immature ticks and multiple ticks found feeding on humans or animals);
  4. field-validated signals from human case surveillance; or
  5. field-validated ecological/niche models that predict riskFootnote 9.

Method (i) is recommended to confirm the first occurrence of Lyme disease risk areas in provinces and territories where these have not been identified to date. Methods (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) are recommended only for those provinces and territories after the occurrence of one or more reproducing populations of tick vectors, and B. burgdorferi transmission, has been confirmed using method (i).

For specific locations of at-risk areas, visit Lyme disease risk areas or visit the websites of the relevant provincial and territorial public health organisations.

Return to footnote * referrer

Footnote **

This category of the case definition does not include criteria for clinical evidence. This exclusion does not imply that the patient did not experience clinical manifestations; rather, it indicates that no investigation into clinical manifestations was conducted for surveillance purposes.

Return to footnote ** referrer

Appendix: Description of the change to the national case definition

In 2024, the Tick-borne Diseases Task Group of the Public Health Network's Communicable and Infectious Disease Steering Committee (CIDSC) proposed several changes that have been incorporated to the case definition including:

  1. introduction of the modified two-tier testing (MTTT) approach as an alternative for serologic testing;
  2. addition of laboratory-based cases in high-incidence areas; and
  3. update of the reference to the serologic testing guidelines.

These updates aim to enhance flexibility and accuracy for Lyme disease surveillance, taking into account the varying surveillance approaches for Lyme disease across jurisdictions.

Rationale for the change

Expected impact on the number of cases reported

Consultation process followed for the change

Provinces and territories implementing the change

All provinces and territories have approved the revised case definition.

Date of implementation

February 2025

Previous case definitions

Lyme disease case definition (2016)

References

Footnote 1

Lantos PM, Rumbaugh J, Bockenstedt LK, Falck-Ytter YT, Aguero-Rosenfeld ME, Auwaerter PG, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(1):e1-e48.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

Hatchette TF, Davis I, Johnston BL. 2014. Lyme disease: clinical diagnosis and treatment. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2014;40(11):194.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). Suggested reporting language, interpretation and guidance regarding Lyme disease serologic test results. 2024. https://www.aphl.org/aboutAPHL/publications/Documents/ID-2024-Lyme-Disease-Serologic-Testing-Reporting.pdf.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

Davis IR, McNeil SA, Allen W, MacKinnon-Cameron D, Lindsay LR, Bernat K, et al. Performance of a modified two-tiered testing enzyme immunoassay algorithm for serologic diagnosis of Lyme disease in Nova Scotia. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58(7):10.1128/jcm. 01841-19.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

Centers for Disease Control Prevention (CDC). Recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1995;44(31):590-1.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

Health Canada. Consensus Conference on Lyme disease. Can Med Assoc J. 1991;144:1627-32.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

Ogden NH, Koffi JK, Pelcat Y, Lindsay LR. Environmental risk from Lyme disease in central and eastern Canada: a summary of recent surveillance information. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2014;40(5):74-82.

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8

Koffi JK, Leighton PA, Pelcat Y, Trudel L, Lindsay LR, Milord F, N.H.Ogden. Passive Surveillance for I. scapularis ticks: enhanced analysis for early detection of emerging Lyme Disease risk. J Med Entomol. 2012;49(2):400-9.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

Mak S, Morshed M, Henry B. Ecological niche modeling of lyme disease in British Columbia, Canada. J Med Entomol. 2010;47(1):99-105.

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Page details

2025-02-24